| Author |
interdictor-change (beta) |
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
|  Posted: 2012-07-26 13:32
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-26 13:22, Bardiche wrote:
@Talien: We had various ideas but liked this one best. Cooldowns, increased energy use and lack of jumping while engaged would not fix the problem we diagnosed.
|
|
What problem did you diagnose?
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2012-07-26 18:41
DS seems to be headed balancewise in the direction of large fleet battles.
A balanced fleet of Stations, Dreads, Cruisers, and Destroyers of every type will defeat a mass of just one ship type. But in order for this to happen the fleets must be large to accomodate every ship type. DS simply doesn't have the numbers for this.
Take the Agincourt, MD, Carrier Dread, Command Carrier, and Brood. They have significant strategic value in large fleet combat, but currently they are not used. Why? Because there aren't enough people to support these ships and the rewards of using these ships on a small fleet are near zero.
Like these ships the new Interdictors will only be significant when there are large fleets. 4% damage isn't going to cut it when there are 5 other people.
Proposed Solutions:
Option 1: More % buffs/debuffs. This is tricky to balance as this is probably the first heavily player number dependent AoE in a game with a fluctuating playerbase. It can be overpowered in the blink of an eye when fleets reach critical mass.
Option 2: Give utility or combat ability. Make them "mini command dreads". Maybe give them a rep drone. Or a few build drones and mining beams. Fighters or weapons? Currently 4% is not enough to justify the loss of a similarly classed BC/HC/Scale. Like the command dreads, try not to encroach too much on a role.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-07-26 20:15
Quote:
|
Right now in beta, on the UGTO Interdictor cruiser, we have 3 auras to test.
The speed aura which increases velocity, turn rate, and thrust of allies by 4%
The damage aura which increases damage of energy and kinetic of allies by 4%
The jumpdrive disruptor which reduces JD recharge of enemies by some percent.
|
|
I've read the arguments in the thread, and admittedly I haven't gone ingame to test them yet. But both the Staff and Azreal do have their points.
IMO, Auras have to be carefully and sparingly implemented to avoid this game turning from a tactical/action game into a roll-based/statistics type one. Auras, when implemented should provide effects that are.... how do you say... realistically or physically possible, or at least believable in a SciFi context.
Eg:
Neg Aura effects vs enemies: Slowing down JD recharge, reducing their shielding recharge,
Positive effects on allies: Increasing scanning range, Increasing repair rates, boosting JD recharge
I'll be honest. I don't like positive auras like:
- The speed aura which increases velocity, turn rate, and thrust of allies by 4%
- The damage aura which increases damage of energy and kinetic of allies by 4%
Why? How does having a command make your ship turn faster or speed up? Or how does having one of these ships around increase my weaps damage all of a sudden?
I think I know what Azreal may be trying to say with his WOW comparisons. Area effects have to make some sort of sense in a scientifically feasible or at least logically explainable way.
OK so back to the Dico.
Personally, if you want to remove the ship-mounted dico disrupting jumps, that's fine. I agree to a large extent that the dico did cause players to log.
But reducing JD recharge by 10%? Even though its stackable, it basically renders the dicos completely useless. I would rather deploy another combat/assault ship in its place for firepower to kill.
Here're my suggestions or ideas.
- Interdictor device should completely STOP all enemy JDs from charging. It stops the JD charge level in its track. Doesn't reset the JD or empty it. Simply freezes it. Puts it in pause.
- Grav well gen: Reduces enemy accel and top speed (turn rate not affected) by 10% (non stackable)
- Targeting computer jammer: Looks fine. Maybe tweak it to 5% to round it off.
Side effects: The interdictor ship itself suffers the same effect as its enemy does. Allies don't.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-07-26 20:35
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-26 20:15, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
Right now in beta, on the UGTO Interdictor cruiser, we have 3 auras to test.
The speed aura which increases velocity, turn rate, and thrust of allies by 4%
The damage aura which increases damage of energy and kinetic of allies by 4%
The jumpdrive disruptor which reduces JD recharge of enemies by some percent.
|
|
I've read the arguments in the thread, and admittedly I haven't gone ingame to test them yet. But both the Staff and Azreal do have their points.
IMO, Auras have to be carefully and sparingly implemented to avoid this game turning from a tactical/action game into a roll-based/statistics type one. Auras, when implemented should provide effects that are.... how do you say... realistically or physically possible, or at least believable in a SciFi context.
Eg:
Neg Aura effects vs enemies: Slowing down JD recharge, reducing their shielding recharge,
Positive effects on allies: Increasing scanning range, Increasing repair rates, boosting JD recharge
I'll be honest. I don't like positive auras like:
- The speed aura which increases velocity, turn rate, and thrust of allies by 4%
- The damage aura which increases damage of energy and kinetic of allies by 4%
Why? How does having a command make your ship turn faster or speed up? Or how does having one of these ships around increase my weaps damage all of a sudden?
I think I know what Azreal may be trying to say with his WOW comparisons. Area effects have to make some sort of sense in a scientifically feasible or at least logically explainable way.
OK so back to the Dico.
Personally, if you want to remove the ship-mounted dico disrupting jumps, that's fine. I agree to a large extent that the dico did cause players to log.
But reducing JD recharge by 10%? Even though its stackable, it basically renders the dicos completely useless. I would rather deploy another combat/assault ship in its place for firepower to kill.
Here're my suggestions or ideas.
- Interdictor device should completely STOP all enemy JDs from charging. It stops the JD charge level in its track. Doesn't reset the JD or empty it. Simply freezes it. Puts it in pause.
- Grav well gen: Reduces enemy accel and top speed (turn rate not affected) by 10% (non stackable)
- Targeting computer jammer: Looks fine. Maybe tweak it to 5% to round it off.
Side effects: The interdictor ship itself suffers the same effect as its enemy does. Allies don't.
|
|
The system doesn't work in the way you want it to. Server resources are very precious to us. This game requires a lot of real time processing for it to work in the way it does, so anything we add has to be gone over with a toothcombe fifty times.
We cannot add non-stackable auras. This is a no-go. A 'not going to happen'. We can add limits to certain values so they don't go way way way into the + or way way way into the - by hardcoding them on the ship itself (ie, if MT_WEAPON_DAMAGE < 0.4 then MT_WEAPON_DAMAGE = 0.4), but that's our only way of doing that (which is fine).
Please bare in mind the values are just ballpark and not final in any way, shape or form. This is DarkSpace, and if there's one thing you've tought us in the past, it's that you guys will exploit the hell out of anything we give you that can be exploited, so we're going careful with this one, so no -50000000% damage.
We cannot effect the shot ship as well as enemies, or visa versa - it's only all enemies, or all allies, and these cruisers will only have negative effecting auras.
The layouts will not be staying the same. The only reason they were so pants before is because the interdictor device was such a massive tool that we had to limit the ship. Since it no longer has this arguably game-ruining device, we can beef these ships back up so they're no longer 'useless', which is the entire idea.
The Command Cruiser is supposed to be a so-so ship with a useful layout that can bring an extra bit of oomph to the field by reducing damage, or defences, or what not.
We can effect EVERYTHING that enhancements can (which is how the system works), so if you have an idea for a debuff aura, let us know, and we can make it happen. But no silly numbers please.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-07-26 20:47
No silly numbers. I agree.
I was talking about the TYPE of aura effects. Let me phrase it better.
Speed Aura: Gives you speed and turn rate increase of X%.
It's not the percentage that matters. Rather, it's the question of "How the heck does having a command ship around make all the ships within aura range move faster??"
As I mentioned, I can picture a Command ship around giving everyone a longer sensor range, or able to track ships with lower signatures (better detection threshold), or better rep rates within a repair field.
We can attribute these to better C&C, which is what a Command ship is all about. But please, please, please.... no speed, maneuvarability, or damage buffs please.
Back to my question:
Can the dico stop recharge instead of that 10% slowdown instead?
Is there a flag that can turn off or stop the recharge in its track?
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-07-26 20:56 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-07-26 21:11
I have to agree about no damage, defense, or movement buffs, not only is it hard to explain in any sort of realistic manner, it's also completely unnecessary. Damage DEBUFFS sure, that can be explained at least semi-realistically (at least for anything but solid projectiles/missiles) but buffs should be limited to stuff like Kenny suggested, increased sensor range, increased detection range of ships with negative signature, and reduced JD recharge. Increased repair rates is a bad idea though as they already get increased by being out of combat, why do we want to increase in combat repair rates with an aura?
Maybe add a build/mining buff, that can also be explained relatively easily.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-07-26 21:59
Currently the only auras are:
-4% turn rate, speed, and thrust via the Gravity Well Generator
-4% damage to weapons via the Targetting Computer Jammer
-10% to Jump Drive recharge via the Interdictor
Kenny, what you're asking me to do is replacing the old Interdictor with a better one, which isn't going to happen... It makes no sense to replace something that annoyed the jesus out of people, with something that will do it to a far greater extent (at least the old dictor allowed you to charge your drive).
As far as BUFF auras go for the Command Dreadnoughts, I'd rather they not receive defence or offencive buffs. I feel those are stacked up enough already, and want to bring more to the field. Speed/turn rate/thrust aura might not be out of the question, but I'd personally prefer not to overlap the two types of auras (so you can cancel out a Cruiser with a Dread).
Again, this system can only affect what enhancements can - they cannot do funky things like add flags to ships, etc. Here is a list of current things we can effect with the auras:
MT_DRIVE_VELOCITY, // affects max velocity
MT_DRIVE_THRUST, // affects accerleration
MT_BEAM_RANGE, // affects beam range
MT_BEAM_ENERGY, // affects beam recharge rate
MT_BEAM_DAMAGE, // affects beam damage
MT_WEAPON_RANGE, // affects weapon range
MT_WEAPON_ENERGY, // affects weapon recharge rate
MT_WEAPON_DAMAGE, // affects weapon damage
MT_WEAPON_COOLDOWN, // affects weapon cooldown
MT_WEAPON_AMMO, // affects weapon ammo
MT_DEFENSE, // affects shield/armor strength
MT_DEFENSE_RECHARGE, // affects shield/armor charge rate
MT_AUTOREPAIR, // affects auto repair rate
MT_BUILD_SPEED, // affects build speed
MT_CLOAK, // affects cloaking rate
MT_EWAR_RANGE, // affects ECM/ECCM range
MT_EWAR_STRENGTH, // affects ECM/ECCM strength
MT_EWAR_ENERGY, // affects ECM/ECCM energy consumption
MT_JUMPDRIVE_RANGE, // affects Jumpdrive range
MT_JUMPGATE_RANGE, // affects jumpgate range
MT_MINING, // affects mining rate
MT_PULSESHIELD, // affects pulse shield range
MT_REACTOR, // affects energy generate rate
MT_RELOAD, // affects reload rate
MT_SCANNER, // affects scanner sensitivity
MT_TRACTOR, // affects tractor beam range
MT_TURNRATE, // affects turn rate
MT_SHIPENERGY, // affects max ship energy
MT_DAMAGE_REDUCTION, // affects all incoming damage to ship
MT_CAPTURE_DEFENSE, // affects change to be captured
MT_SIGNATURE, // affects signature
MT_JUMPCOOLDOWN, // affects jump drive cooldown
MT_JUMPSPEED, // affects jump drive velocity
Faction specific auras will not be added, and things like jump drive velocity won't work. Other than that you're free to think up of your own debuff auras for the Command Cruisers.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2012-07-26 22:06 ]
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-07-26 22:15
I guess my big question is what's planned for people who currently have an Interdictor with enhancements on it that would rather just scrap the ship rather than use a Command Cruiser? I'd imagine a lot of people will be going that route and I can see it turning into a fiasco like when the Stinger and Shell had their layouts switched.
Personally I'll be keeping mine when it's changed, but the full load of adv. defense enh that I have on my Interdictor is not what I'd put on a ship like that.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-07-26 22:21
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-26 22:15, Talien wrote:
I guess my big question is what's planned for people who currently have an Interdictor with enhancements on it that would rather just scrap the ship rather than use a Command Cruiser? I'd imagine a lot of people will be going that route and I can see it turning into a fiasco like when the Stinger and Shell had their layouts switched.
Personally I'll be keeping mine when it's changed, but the full load of adv. defense enh that I have on my Interdictor is not what I'd put on a ship like that.
|
|
We'll be removing the enhancement removal cost for a short period of time after the patch is released so people can take their enhancements off the ship before deleting it.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2012-07-26 22:21 ]
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-07-26 22:29
Talien, I agree abt the rep rate buff. Better put that in the bin.
Let's think of what a COMMAND SHIP can bring to the table for the fleet within its aura. Suggestions include:
- Increased build speed (Better drone control/coordination)
- Friendly infantry +1 level up (C&C ship in orbit gives better coordination)
- Increased chances for friendly inf capture of enemy ship (As above)
- Better sensor detection, able to target lower sig ships (coordinated sensor sweeps)
- Increased scanner/sensor range (coordinated sensors)
- Increased ECM/ECCM strength (coordinated EW)
- Perfect JD accuracy within aura?? (navigation improves with fleet coordination)
And to promote actually deploying command ships, how about +5% pres gain for all ships (incl. Command ship) within the aura field to promote fleet cohesiveness and tactics?
Lastly....
The reason why I asked if auras can be made not stackable is to avoid having the ridiculous situation where the enemy deploys 5 command ships in a single fleet.
Have you guys ever thought about aura abuse? That's probably why the auras only have a small %-tage effect, effectively making a single command ship have very little effect or use for a fleet.
But if you could make it non-stackable, then you could assign larger AOE values on each command ship, making them more usefull individually, and also negating the need or practicality to bring along five of them in a fleet.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-07-26 22:39
I suppose it depends on what the point cost is for the command gadget. I'd imagine it'd be bigger than the debuff gadget for the Command Cruiser since it's a positive effect for every ally, and the lower cost for the debuff gadget is balanced out in that you're putting yourself in danger by sticking close enough to enemies to debuff them.
I'd imagine Command Aura abuse can be easily gotten around by making it a high cost gadget and leaving Command Ships with little offense/defense capability, that way it wouldn't be worth it to have more than 1 as you're sacrificing something that do damage.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2012-07-26 22:57
yeah, im sure you have more to fear from 10 EADs than 10 Command whatevers
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-07-27 03:35
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-26 21:59, Pantheon wrote:
Currently the only auras are:
-4% turn rate, speed, and thrust via the Gravity Well Generator
-4% damage to weapons via the Targetting Computer Jammer
-10% to Jump Drive recharge via the Interdictor
Kenny, what you're asking me to do is replacing the old Interdictor with a better one, which isn't going to happen... It makes no sense to replace something that annoyed the jesus out of people, with something that will do it to a far greater extent (at least the old dictor allowed you to charge your drive).
|
|
OK fine, since you put it that way.
Two questions:
- What is the effect of increasing the jump drive recharge penalty from 10% to 15 or 20%?
- How about interdictors still stopping your jump, but not preventing you from making one out?
The reason why I'm suggesting this is so that it can still be used in a defensive manner, and not offensively (to trap fleeing ships).
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-26 21:59, Pantheon wrote:
As far as BUFF auras go for the Command Dreadnoughts, I'd rather they not receive defence or offencive buffs. I feel those are stacked up enough already, and want to bring more to the field. Speed/turn rate/thrust aura might not be out of the question, but I'd personally prefer not to overlap the two types of auras (so you can cancel out a Cruiser with a Dread).
Again, this system can only affect what enhancements can - they cannot do funky things like add flags to ships, etc. Here is a list of current things we can effect with the auras:
Faction specific auras will not be added, and things like jump drive velocity won't work. Other than that you're free to think up of your own debuff auras for the Command Cruisers.
|
|
Taking from your list, I've excluded the ones that I think shouldn't be buffed by the presence of command ships. Weap damage and ship performances, for example, being "individual" things that should not be affected by having some C3 ship around.
This group deals with EW and detection, and is a good place to put buffs for Command ships. Makes perfect sense. :
MT_EWAR_RANGE, // affects ECM/ECCM range
MT_EWAR_STRENGTH, // affects ECM/ECCM strength
MT_EWAR_ENERGY, // affects ECM/ECCM energy consumption
MT_SCANNER, // affects scanner sensitivity
MT_SIGNATURE, // affects signature
This one deals with support functions. Also a plausible place to go.
MT_BUILD_SPEED, // affects build speed
MT_MINING, // affects mining rate
Might make sense that if you have a command ship nearby one of your boarded allies, you can rally the crew or defenses to fight off the boarders. Some kinda morale thingie.
MT_CAPTURE_DEFENSE, // affects change to be captured
This is already affected by the Interdictor device, but negatively for the enemy.
No bonus to friendlies please.
MT_JUMPCOOLDOWN, // affects jump drive cooldown
What do you think?
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-07-27 03:56 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-07-27 08:25
That's sort of what was in my mind, though I'm sure there are other things we can do.
As far as reducing the jump charge time by 15%, I'm open to that. This is all new, and we're just trying to make sure everyone doesn't jump in Command Cruisers - but I doubt we'll see that happening unless we boost the auras to 20% or higher.
_________________
|
Daagda Moor
2nd Rear Admiral
Joined: March 26, 2009
Posts: 23
From: Deep inside Andromeda
| Posted: 2012-07-27 08:27
Will there be a Summon Gaifens aura as well?
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
